Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 6.4.5 Exhibit E- Reclamation Plan <br />5. The submitted reclamation plan proposes to change the maximum slope at the site from 4H:1 V to 2.5H:1 V and <br />states that the sloped areas of the reclaimed site will be designated as rangeland or wildlife habitat because these <br />slopes are not conducive to irrigation. The Division's standards for areas designated as rangeland or wildlife <br />habitat contain final slopes no steeper than 3H:1 V in order for livestock or wildlife to be able to safely traverse <br />these areas. Please address this issue. <br />The submitted reclamation plan states that "slope reduction will be accomplished by placing refuse material along <br />the nearly vertical face of the side walls of the pit." Please specify the nature of the refuse material proposed for <br />slope reduction. Please be aware that Rule 3.1.5(9) (Reclamation Measures - Material Handling) of the <br />Construction Materials Rules and Regulations indicates that materials generated on site that are inert may be used <br />as backfill. This rule further states that if the operator intends to backfill inert structural fill generated outside of <br />the approved permit area, the operator must notify the office according to guidelines specified in this rule. Please <br />clarify the origin and nature of the refuse that will be used to backfill during reclamation at the site. <br />Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G- Water Information <br />7. The submitted Water Information states that the pit is expected to encounter an underground aquifer that is <br />contained in the under lying sandstone but which may extend into the gravel deposits to be mined. The exhibit <br />further states that the perennial level of groundwater is unknown but that the operator will take care to adjust the <br />mining depths to leave at lest two feet of undisturbed material above the groundwater level. In that the perennial <br />groundwater level is unknown, please specify how the operator will determine how deep to mine without risking <br />disturbance of at least two feet of material above the water level. <br />Rule 6.4.19 Exhibit S- Permanent Man-Made Structures <br />8. Section (a) of this rule directs the Applicant to provide a notarized agreement between the applicant and the <br />person(s) having an interest in the structure (within 200 feet of the affected land) that the applicant is to provide <br />compensation for any damage to the structure. Although the submitted narrative for this exhibit states that such an <br />agreement is included in the application materials for the San Miguel Power Association's 69 kV transmission line <br />and for the fences owned by Marilyn Allen, these agreements are not included with the application materials. <br />Please supply the necessary agreements or stability report relating to these structures. <br />Section (b) of this rule directs the Applicant to provide an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates <br />that structures for which damage agreements cannot be obtained, shall not be damaged by activities occurring at <br />the mining operation. In lieu of a damage agreement for the headgate and ditch associated with the Gurley Ditch <br />belonging to Robert & Melissa Bray and the headgate and ditch associated with the Gurley Ditch belonging to <br />Gary & Marcia Rushing, the applicant has supplied a statement from James E. Stover, P.E. stating that as long as <br />specific practices are incorporated during site activities, he does not believe that mining on the property will have <br />any impacts on these structures. In the absence of a damage. agreement, the Division requires a geotechnical <br />stability report related to potential impacts to the nearby permanent man-made structures. Please submit either a <br />damage agreement or the appropriate geotechnical stability report. <br />Please be advised that the Louisiana Land and Gravel Company, LLC, Angie Pit 112(c) Permit Amendment <br />Application may be deemed inadequate, and the application may be denied June 4, 2008 unless the above mentioned <br />adequacy review items are addressed to the satisfaction of the Division. Responses to these adequacy concerns must be <br />received by the Division to allow adequate time for review prior to the decision date. If you feel more time is needed to <br />complete your reply, the Division can grant an extension to the decision date. This will be done upon receipt of a <br />written waiver of your right to a decision by June 4, 2008 and request for additional time. This request must be <br />received no later than June 4, 2008. Please be aware that depending on the answers that are received regarding the <br />above adequacy issues, the Division may have further adequacy questions. The Division may also have additional <br />adequacy questions once the site has undergone an inspection related to this amendment application.